Correspondence - #18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana — Cabrillo Town Center Project Appeal October 3, 2023 Page 3of5 First, the Project is not within the scope of the Metro EIR's assessed transportation impacts because the Metro EIR point blanket states that "specific development proposals made in the Overlay Zone would be subject to separate environmental clearance/review." (Metro EIR at 3-17.) On these grounds alone, a subsequent EIR which assesses and quantifies the Project's VMT impacts and feasible mitigation measures must be prepared, especially when taking into account that the Metro EIR found significant and unavoidable transportation impacts. (Metro EIR at 4.12-54.) Moreover, as noted by transportation expert Norm Marshall, new data and mitigation measures have come to light since the certification of the Metro EIR. (August 3, 2023 Letter from Norm Marshall to Talia Nimmer ["Marshall Letter"] [attached hereto as Exhibit A] at p. 5 ["climate science has evolved and GHG reduction practices have advanced in sophistication. New priorities have also arisen, such as strengthening climate resilience and infusing health and equity into integrated planning efforts."] In fact, since the certification of the Metro EIR in 2007, the City itself has changed its metric for assessing transportation impacts and has also provided further guidance on transportation mitigation measures and VMT analysis screening. (Marshall Letter at pp. 2; 5 [noting that the City's guidelines provide that land use projects can only be screened from complete VMT analysis under certain circumstances and that VMT- reduction measures must be implemented in certain circumstances.) Such new methodology, guidance, and mitigation measures constitute new information because the Metro EIR failed to analyze whether the Project falls within any of the screened categories or requires new VMT mitigation measures, further necessitating a subsequent EIR. Second, the City's argument that no subsequent EIR is necessary due to the preparation and findings in the Memo fails. Critically, such contention is contrary to the CEQA's requirement that a subsequent EIR be prepared upon the existence of new information and mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, � 15162(a). However, even assuming arguendo that such contention was consistent with the City's CEQA requirements, such assertion still fails because the Memo is inconsistent with the City's own Guidelines, which identify the Project location as exempt from VMT screening. (Marshall Letter at 2-5.) The City's assertion that no subsequent EIR and VMT analysis is required for the Project cannot stand.